Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 3,163

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta‐analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control

Open access
Poorter, Hendrik, Niklas, Karl J., Reich, Peter B., Oleksyn, Jacek, Poot, Pieter, Mommer, Liesje·2012·New Phytologist

Abstract

Summary: We quantified the biomass allocation patterns to leaves, stems and roots in vegetative plants, and how this is influenced by the growth environment, plant size, evolutionary history and competition. Dose–response curves of allocation were constructed by means of a meta‐analysis from a wide array of experimental data. They show that the fraction of whole‐plant mass represented by leaves (LMF) increases most strongly with nutrients and decreases most strongly with light. Correction for size‐induced allocation patterns diminishes the LMF‐response to light, but makes the effect of temperature on LMF more apparent. There is a clear phylogenetic effect on allocation, as eudicots invest relatively more than monocots in leaves, as do gymnosperms compared with woody angiosperms. Plants grown at high densities show a clear increase in the stem fraction. However, in most comparisons across species groups or environmental factors, the variation in LMF is smaller than the variation in one of the other components of the growth analysis equation: the leaf area : leaf mass ratio (SLA). In competitive situations, the stem mass fraction increases to a smaller extent than the specific stem length (stem length : stem mass). Thus, we conclude that plants generally are less able to adjust allocation than to alter organ morphology. Contents Summary 30 I. Allocation in perspective 31 II. Topics of this review 32 III. Methodology 32 IV. Environmental effects 33 V. Ontogeny 36 VI. Differences between species 40 VII. Physiology and molecular regulation 41 VIII. Ecological aspects 42 IX. Perspectives 45 Acknowledgements 45 References 45 Appendices A1–A4 49

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03952.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 3,163

Metadata

Authors
Poorter, H., Niklas, K. J., Reich, P. B., Oleksyn, J., Poot, P., & Mommer, L.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-11-15
Volume
193
Issue
1
Pages
30-50
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2141484921
Cited by
3,163
References
2
FWCI
66.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta‐analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03952.x
The paper
Poorter, H., Niklas, K. J., Reich, P. B., Oleksyn, J., Poot, P., & Mommer, L. (2012). Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta‐analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03952.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.